We find one thing in common in paranormal phenomena; degrees of "proof."
Ghost hunting: Anecdotal stories by those who have had something unusual happen they cannot explain, those who claim they have physical proof, i.e. photos and video, and those who claim to have had an encounter with the ghost. Proven? NO.
UFOs: Anecdotal stories by those who have had something unusual happen they cannot explain, those who claim they have physical proof, i.e. photos and video, and those who claim they have had an encounter with the aliens. Proven? NO.
Bigfoot: Anecdotal stories by those who have had something happen they cannot explain, those who claim they have physical proof, i.e. photos and video, and those who claim they have had an encounter with Bigfoot. Proven? NO.
Now, let's compare this to something we all encounter every day.
Burt thinks his father-in-law is cheating on his mother-in-law. He thinks this because he saw the man out to lunch at the mall on a work day when he told his wife he was working through lunch. At this point, he has no way of proving to his wife that her father cheated, only that he saw him at the mall. Whether his wife believes that depends on how convincing Burt's description is. Most people would say, he couldn't do a thing about it without proof. Too bad he didn't have his camera! Well, weeks later, Burt goes out to the lake to take pictures of the ducks when he sees his father-in-law sitting on a bench with a strange woman he didn't recognize. He had the forethought to zoom his camera in and take a picture. He brought it home and showed it to his wife. She frowned and sighed. "Burt, that woman could have been sitting there when my father sat down. I don't see them even looking at each other." Now, Burt is frustrated. He had a story. He had a photo. Still, his wife is not seeing it the way he sees it, not connecting the dots. To his wife, they are separate unrelated incidents. To Burt, these are interconnected and real. When he sees his father-in-law climbing into his car in front of a home on the other side of town, Burt confronts him. His father-in-law, flustered, tells him that he was doing a service call on an important client. Burt doubts that, as the home is in a lower income neighborhood and his father-in-law never deals with clients for his investment company in their own homes. Still, Burt's wife shakes her head again. "Honey, you need to let this go. You're becoming obsessed."
Burt's story is much like the witnesses of any paranormal phenomena. Stories can be biased and not accurate, "evidence" can be out of context or not what it seems, even encounters can be exaggerated.
What we really look for the paranormal is for the "father-in-law" to come forward and confess. What would it take for such a situation? Perhaps when it becomes so undeniable that, like a starlet caught on the cover of a gossip rag with another man, he has to come forward and tell his side of the story.
So, my advice in the field of paranormal research is to continue to make it impossible for any such phenomena to exist without asserting self. If you continue to annoy ghostly phenomena, chase Bigfoot through the woods, or click off photos of UFOs right and left, you are doing your part to make the sheer evidence so massive that the general public begins to crumble.
Should Burt continually have stories and photographs of his father-in-law in questionable situations, his wife will begin to doubt her own stand on the matter. After all, a few times is a fluke, but many many times is a trend...